Subject: [ietf-dkim] Yahoo's domainkeys as historic: timing

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 20:01:48 +0100

Folks,

Mark has written a draft [1] that documents the pre-WG state of
domainkeys. This is to be discussed on the next IESG telechat,
with the goal being for it to be published as an historic RFC.

Barry and I (and Russ, and I suspect most of us) support publishing
this as an historic RFC.

We've been asked a question about timing where there may however
be differing views and we wanted to get the WG's opinion.

The question: is it better for this document to be published as an 
historic RFC "now" or at the same time as the standards track DKIM
base RFC is published? (Where all timings here are modulo the RFC
editor's queuing discipline.)

So, the potential answers are:

    "now", or,

    "same time", or,

    "don't care".

Since the next IESG telechat is on the 20th [2], if you could let
us know what you think by the end of Tuesday, that'd be good,

Thanks,
Stephen.

PS: The DKIM threats draft is also on this IESG telechat agenda.

[1] http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-delany-domainkeys-base-05.txt
[2] http://www.ietf.org/IESG/agenda.html

_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html

---

From: Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 12:20:08 -0700

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 12:41:40 -0700

> with the goal being for it to be published as an historic RFC.

What is the reason for Historic, rather than Informational?

I am prety sure that historic has never been applied to a specification that was
not previously an IETF standard.  The usual means of labeling an RFC that
specifies a popular, proprietary protocol is Informational.

> editor's queuing discipline.)

same time.  we have enough confusion in the market, as it is.

d/

-- 

  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking
  bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html

---

From: Mark Delany <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 19:47:16 +0000

> What is the reason for Historic, rather than Informational?

Good question. I had asked for Informational on the basis of the
deployment.

> same time.  we have enough confusion in the market, as it is.

As long as the RFC numbers turn out in the right order. Would it
confuse folk if the Information had a bigger number than DKIM?

Mark.

---

From: Graham Murray <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2006 10:16:50 +0100

> specifies a popular, proprietary protocol is Informational.

Maybe because the aim is that DKIM will obsolete DomainKeys with the
hope that implementations currently experimenting with DomainKeys will
'upgrade' to using DKIM.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2006 11:35:55 +0200

> confuse folk if the Information had a bigger number than DKIM?

I don't know.  I think the simple approach is to send an email to the
RFC Editor to see that this doesn't happen.  I'm pretty confident they
can accommodate such a request.

Eliot

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2006 11:34:29 +0200

Dave Crocker wrote:
> not previously an IETF standard.  

It's happened once before, somewhere in the 1xxx series.  I forget which
document, but it was recently discussed on what I believe was the IETF
list, perhaps in one of the NEWTRK threads.

> The usual means of labeling an RFC that

I view this as a short cut to publish this first, then publish DKIM with
the "Obsoletes:" header (and we should do both).

> same time.  we have enough confusion in the market, as it is.

Agree.

Eliot

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2006 11:46:11 +0200

> list, perhaps in one of the NEWTRK threads.

It's RFC 1716, according to a recent message by Fred, and it may have
happened more than once.

Eliot

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 08:38:06 -0700

>base RFC is published? (Where all timings here are modulo the RFC

same time.

Regards,
-sm

---

From: Jim Fenton <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 11:17:15 -0700

> editor's queuing discipline.)
"same time", except that if the publication of DK is delayed for any
reason (e.g., editorial stuff, or queuing priorities), publication of
DKIM -base should not be delayed.  If they're published at the same
time, then sure, give DK the lower RFC number.

I presume the RFC Index will list DK as obsoleted by [DKIM RFC number]?

-Jim